Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33761978›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2021

Diverting less urgent utilizers of emergency medical services to primary care: is it feasible? Patient and morbidity characteristics from a cross-sectional multicenter study of self-referring respiratory emergency department consulters.

Felix Holzinger, Sarah Oslislo, Rebecca Resendiz Cantu, Martin Möckel, Christoph Heintze

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Work Climate Scale in Emergency Services: Abridged Version.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Felix HolzingerInstitute of General Practice, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. felix.holzinger@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8400-7757
Sarah OslisloInstitute of General Practice, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Rebecca Resendiz CantuInstitute of General Practice, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Martin MöckelDivision of Emergency Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Campus Mitte and Virchow, Berlin, Germany.
Christoph HeintzeInstitute of General Practice, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GY1604
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDiversion of less urgent emergency medical services (EMS) callers to alternative primary care (PC) is much debated. Using data from the EMACROSS survey of respiratory ED patients, we aimed to characterize self-referred EMS patients, compare these with non-EMS patients, and assess scope and acceptability of a potential redirection to alternative PC.

resultsOf n = 292 self-referred patients, n = 99 were transported by EMS. Compared to non-EMS patients, these were older, triaged more urgently and arrived out-of-hours more frequently. The share of chronically and severely ill patients was greater. Out-of-hours ED visit, presence of a chronic pulmonary condition as well as a hospital diagnosis of respiratory failure were identified as determinants of EMS utilization in a logistic model, while consultation for access and quality motives as well as migrant status decreased the probability. EMS-transported lower urgency outpatients visiting during regular physicians' hours were defined as potential PC cases and evaluated descriptively (n = 9). As a third was medically complex and potentially less suitable for PC, redirection potential could be estimated at only 6% of EMS cases. This would be reduced to 2% if considering patients' judgment concerning the appropriate setting. Overall, the scope for PC diversion of respiratory EMS patients seems limited.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesCross-Sectional StudiesEmergency Service, HospitalHumansMorbidityPrimary Health CareConsultation determinantsEmergency departmentEmergency medical servicesHealth care utilizationRespiratory conditions

Identifiers

PMID33761978
PMCPMC7992314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.